It's true 3D considerably darkens everything, so they probably couldn't take too many risks with certain sequences. That said, the scene with the stone giants looks considerably darker than Gollum's Cave and it's still easy to see what's going on. So Riddles in the Dark probably could be darkened a bit, more in keeping with the Gollum shot we are shown in the first trailer. And I expected a more shadowy (not necessarily darker) version of Goblintown but that's just a matter of taste in the end.

The Hobbit seems to have a bit of both in it. It begins in a comfortable environment we (and children) can relate to, maybe not urban but certainly not medieval either, and as the adventure gets going we are taken out of our 'comfort zone', so to speak. Then it takes us back to more ancient fears; the wild, the forest, the mountains, the dark, etc. Even if 20th/21st century children are mostly isolated from those environments, their fascination with them is still very much latent, I think.

Thanks! But I believe that I just stick with the basic editor. I'm more used to old school forum codes than messing with a wonky graphic interface. But thanks anyway; this is an interesting time to come to this forum.

The different versions of the films are all color graded individually and specifically based on their end format. The fact that the original capture was done in 3D does NOT have any significant impact on the look of the 2D prints. That is simply a fallacy promoted by anti 3D folks.

I never used to have this issue and reading this sub thread got me to thinking (dangerous thing I know....). I use Firefox now but recently switched from IE. I just opened an IE browser and NO problems quoting... It appears to be an issue related to Firefox unfortunately

1) As already stated, 3D glasses reduce the amount of light entering each eye by about 50%. This tends to make 3D films look murky (e.g. Amazing Spiderman). Simply cranking up the brightness just makes everything look washed out, so it's best to set up and film shots with higher levels of contrast than you would for a 2D film.

2) LotR used a lot of forced perspective to create the illusion of hobbit sized characters, and miniatures for locations. Neither of these techniques works with 3D, so you have to use much more CGI.

3) 3D can cause eye strain in some people, since it creates an illusion of depth, rather than actual depth, the ciliary muscle controlling the lens try to respond inappropriately. To reduce this, you make the film shorter than it would otherwise be.

4) some people find it difficult to refocus on movement in 3D, meaning that rapidly panning shots (e.g. John Carter) are best avoided.

5) 3D allows shots to be set up with different "levels" (e.g. shooting through a rolling car in Avengers). Such shots are pointless in a 2D movie. There are also shots of objects coming directly out of the screen that only work in 3D, but these are a cliche anyway.

I have nothing against 3D film, but it really needs to be treated as a different medium to 2D film. A Far Dragon is the best kind...

You say here that you have nothing against 3D but in your earlier post you said you thought it was a big mistake to shoot The Hobbit in 3D? While it is true that the polarized glasses used to view 3D do cut down the luminance level, properly set up 3D cinemas employ high gain screens to help offset the drop. Further adjustments to luminance in post to compensate do not automatically "wash everything out"... One possible approach would be to shoot in the middle and lighten the 3D files a bit and possibly darken for the 2D prints a little if needed. Certainly some of the earlier 3D presentations in this current craze have been murky looking due to film makers learning curve on adapting their work for best results, as well as improper and/or variations in cinema set up etc.

While forced perspective was one technique used to represent size differences in LOTR, there were others used as well. Even without the use of FP I am quite sure these Hobbit movies will be able to show size differences just as convincingly, and I am guessing there will be little if any additional CGI employed to accomplish it. I also doubt that viewer eye strain from 3D plays any appreciable factor in PJ determining how long these films will be... As far as rapidly panning shots go, I suspect the large majority of film goers feel that they are best avoided whether in 3D or otherwise. "3D" type shots while obviously not producing the same result can still be quite effective in 2D format. Of course highly exaggerated use of them as you say should be frowned upon anyhow

You are correct that there are differences in approach and technique when shooting in 3D. But they really shouldn't make any significant difference to the outcome of a 2D print made from a 3D source given cognizant film makers and theater set ups. I've said on this forum before that while I'm interested in 3D, I far prefer watching in 2D. But even though I personally don't care for it I find no good reasons to rail against it's use for those that do enjoy it.

Why would shooting in 3D have a significant impact on the look of the 2D version?

Is it just the enhanced brightness, or other visual accommodations for 3D, that will also find their way into the 2D version?

For all sorts of reasons, Jackson will have been filming with the third-dimension at the forefront of his mind as certain things (eg dark scenes, fast edits, panning shots) don't work so well in the format and he'll have been wanting to show it off as best he can (being the techno-geek he is). You can film for 3D and it'll work in 2D; film for 2D and you'll have a mess in 3D.

So, yes, "other visual acommodations" for the format will have been made. Expect to see more still frames, more (unnatural levels of) lighting, fewer instances of rapid camera movement and plenty of shots designed to showcase the Red Epic, 5K, 48fps experience (eg Bilbo running towards a retreating camera shouting "I'm going on an adventure", the shot of Bilbo gazing in awe around him at Rivendell, his profile handily highlighted by the sunset to accentuate his position at the forefront of the image, clambering up a mountainside with Bofur's back right up in the camera in order to emphasise the depth in the shot).

Avatar was designed as a 3D film from the start, and is much better as a 3D film than a 2D film.

But I don't feel that it's the right format for a rustic film based on a book written by a committed techno-phobe, and as a prequel to a 2D trilogy. And one that I expect many people will prefer to watch the 2D anyway.

To do either a 2D film well, or a 3D film well, you have to choose your shots differently, light them differently, move the camera differently, use FX differently, and so on.

For me, I will probably have to see it in 2D, because my wife has the start of cataracts (she is diabetic), and these prevent polarised glasses working properly. A Far Dragon is the best kind...

Gandalf even talked about recruiting one to help seal the cave in the mountain pass. I never imagined them as litterally made of stone, though. 'Thus spake Ioreth, wise-woman of Gondor: The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known.' - Gandalf the White

I definitely didn't think Avatar was much better in 3D. To me the 2D version didn't suffer from it's origins in 3D at all really. If I had not seen it in 3D first at the theater, or had never read anything about it before hand, I wouldn't have even known it was made in 3D when watching the 2D version. This idea that in order to do a film well in 3D a bunch of drastically different parameters have to be observed is simply not true. All these "drawbacks" the anti-3D contingent like to list off are overblown hyperbole and quite frankly non-issues in the end. But many people read this stuff from biases sources and just blindly believe it. Unless you have a film which was made to purposely showcase exaggerated negative space 3D effects it's just not something to get riled up about. And PJ has said that the last thing he wanted to do when going to 3D was to restrain or change the shooting style. He said it was very important for The Hobbit that it just seem like the same film makers had gone back to Middle Earth to tell another story. Much ado about nothing...

But if you can convert a 3D film to 2D without loosing something, then there was no point in making the film in 3D in the first place.

It's comparable to colourising old black and white movies. It might make things look more modern, but you loose some of the original cinematography in the process. To the extent that a couple of recent films have chosen to film in black and white.

Avatar has deliberately simplistic plot and characters, so as not to distract from the purpose of the film, to show off the immersive 3D landscape of a detailed imaginary world. A Far Dragon is the best kind...